Best Lawyers is a peer-review group, first published in 1983. The group recognizes outstanding lawyers, from more than 70 practice areas, who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Each selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Congratulations, Jeff, on a well deserved honor! Read More

As 2019 commences, there are a number of statutes that will begin to take effect (and that have already taken effect) as a result of legislation passed during Michigan’s 2018 lame duck legislative session.The following is a brief summary of legislation passed during 2018 that may affect a number of our clients, as well as a number of House and Senate bills we were tracking that failed to become enacted. Read More

Bloom Sluggett, P.C. is pleased to announce that we have been selected as a "2019 Best Law Firm" by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers. This is the fourth time that our firm has been recognized.

Cliff Bloom is
general legal counsel for the Michigan Lake & Stream Associations, Inc. and
the Michigan Riparian Magazine. Cliff
authors a regular column for the Michigan Riparian Magazine and many of those
columns can be read on our firm’s website at www.bloomsluggett.com. In
addition, many of his articles regarding water law and riparian issues can also
be accessed at the Michigan Riparian Magazine website at www.mi-riparian.org. Read More

Most municipal officials in
Michigan know that under the OMA, members of a public body (such as a city
commission, village council, township board, zoning board of appeals, board of
review or planning commission) cannot deliberate toward any decision outside of
a public meeting if a quorum is involved in those discussions or
deliberations. Furthermore, the Michigan
courts have gone so far as to hold that even “one-on-one” deliberations between
two members of a public body can constitute a prohibited deliberation (and a
violation of OMA) where a “round robin” occurs.

The Michigan Department of Treasury released on May 3rd an “assessing reform proposal” that is intended to be introduced in the Legislature prior to its summer break. The stated goal of the proposed legislation is to improve the assessment profession through quality control. As drafted, the proposed bill could force many small assessing districts to “consolidate” their assessing departments, either with other assessing districts or under the county’s umbrella.

For an assessing district that does not use county assessing services, the State Tax Commission (“STC”) would mandate “substantial compliance” with various “quality standards,” including requiring the assessor of record to have attained either MMAO(4) or MAAO(3) level certification, to be responsible for assessing a certain minimum number of parcels and generated tax revenue (with some exceptions), and to provide full time service to an assessing district as an employee or contractor (with some exceptions). Read More

On April 12, 2018, our firm will celebrate its six-year anniversary. We very much appreciate the support and loyalty of our clients. Our attorneys look forward to many future years of representing existing and future clients. Read More

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently reiterated that a public body has the authority to approve prior decisions of that public body which are void because of a violation under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act (the “OMA”). In Lockwood v Township of Ellington (decided on March 13, 2018), the township failed to provide proper public notice of a rescheduled township board meeting at which two citizens were appointed to the township’s planning commission. At a later (properly held and noticed) township board meeting, two other citizens were appointed to the planning commission instead. The initial planning commission appointees subsequently filed a lawsuit against the township. In upholding the township board’s later appointments, the Court of Appeals noted that an action taken at a meeting held in violation of the OMA has no force or effect; however, a public body may later “ratify” decisions that were made at that previous defective meeting. In this case, the township board failed to later “ratify” the initial planning commission appointments, instead opting to appoint two different citizens at a later township board meeting. Accordingly, the later appointments were found to be valid because, without “ratification,” the earlier appointments were void. Read More